New Zealand’s Place in Pacific

Could She Be "Britain of the South Seas"?

By Angus Ross

DESPITE the outbreak of war, the New Zealand Government and other au thorities proceeded with the Centennial Celebrations, the preparations for which were so far advanced that it would have been difficult to cancel them.

The Centennial Exhibition opened on November 8, ancl the major celebrations are to take place in January and Feb ruary, 1940.

At such a time, it may be of interest to recall that one of the reasons given for the colonisation of New Zealand, 100 years ago, was the country’s geographical situation in the South Pacific, which would enable her to serve as a base for British political and commercial opera tions in the Pacific. Reference to con temporary literature on the subject gives ample proof of this.

Thus, a memorial presented to the Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office, as early as 1828, stressed the value of New Zealand to any European power with ambitions in the South Pacific. The writer stated: * “I confess I feel considerable anxiety into whose hands New Zealand will be placed, as I am satisfied that the pos session of the islands of New Zealand by Great Britain. France, or America, will give that Power the command of the South Pacific, and if in the hands of either of the latter Powers, will soon disturb the peace of our Colonies in New Holland (Australia).”

Various firms interested in whaling and in trading in the South Seas claimed that New Zealand was favourably situ

ated for the establishment of a complete ascendancy by whatever Power cared to intervene there. Several of the witnesses called before the Committee of the House of Lords, in 1838, referred to this fact.

Thus, a certain Mr. Coutts Crawford told the Committee that he considered New Zealand the most valuable Colony in that part of the world, “equal to all the Aus tralian Colonies put together”. He said; “It is full of harbours, and it will have a great commerce and a large maritime population; in fact, in such a way, that it will be the Great Britain of that part of the world, including the vast archi pelago of islands to the north, and will command the trade of that part of the world in future times”.

WRITING in 1839 in his “Four Letters to the Right Hon. Earl Durham", Rev. John Dunmore Lang, the senior minister of the Church of Scotland in N.S.W., declared that colonists sent to New Zealand “would secure for Great Britain and her Colonies, what they are otherwise so likely to be deprived of, the riches and the Empire of the Southern Seas”.

Various writers and politicians of the thirties and ’forties of last century de scribed New Zealand as “the Great Brit ian of the Southern Hemisphere”. For example, Lord Ashburton declared that the islands of New Zealand were likely to become a great seat of wealth and naval powers, “in short, to be in the Southern Ocean what the British Isles were to the northern”.

Variations of this theme sometimes led

to strange extravagances of description. .‘if wnte f ? f JP* I? 1 ' the ln soutLeastern h Hemisptoe“ QUeen ° f the south eastern Hemisphere .

The outstandmg of the boasting claims made for New Zealand’s future in Pacific politics and commerce was that made by Charies Duller a prominent supporter of the New Zealand Company and a man well acquainted with Colonial prospects.

Addressing the House of Commons in 1845, he claimed:—

“Considerations of the greatest mo ment do “deed give great political im

lPaondanour 0 P °wttf thf PaTlflfTs

daily increasln S 111 extent. Our relations with other Powers in that ocean are get ting to be very delicate. France has pos session of the Friendly Islands and the Marquesas. The United States have vir tual possession of the Sandwich Islands, ... A British Colony in New Zealand would be the natural master of this ocean, the irresistible arbiter of all its complicated relations and important in

terests. Its position would command the Pacific; its numerous harbours would supply shelter, its vast forests ma terials, for the greatest navy in the world. You might make it, in truth, the Britain of the Southern Hemisphere: there you might concentrate the trade of the Pacific, and from that new seat of your Dominion you might give laws and manners to a new world, upholding subject races, and imposing your will on the strong”.

Needless to say, these dreams of New Zealand becoming the imperial mistress of the Pacific, in a manner similar to Britain or, in past ages, Rome, have not been realised in the first hundred years of New Zealand’s existence as a British possession. For obvious reasons, this is not surprising. At the same time, it must be remembered that the boundaries of New Zealand to-day differ considerably from those of the Colony which was founded in 1840. If the New Zealand Im perialists, of whom Sir George Grey, Sir Julius Vogel, Sir Robert Stout and Rich ard Seddon were the leaders at different periods, had had their way, New Zealand would have controlled almost all the is lands of the South Pacific. Samoa, Fiji, and Tonga should all have been placed under New Zealand administration, ac cording to these men.

To-day, apart from the small outlying islands near New Zealand—such as the Chathams, the Auckland, Antipodes,, Bounty, Snares and Campbell Islands— New Zealand is responsible for the Ker madecs, annexed in 1887; the Cook Is lands, including such islands to the north as Niue, Penrhyn, and Suwarrow, which came under New Zealand in 1901: the Mandate over Western Samoa; es tablished in 1920; and the administration of the Tokelau or Union Group, which was transferred from Great Britain in 1925.

Weakness Of Australia And N.Z.

EDITORIAL NOTE: New Zealand will have to grow very much, in population and commercial importance, before she can expect to become a power in the Pacific. The only Pacific Territories worth mentioning, which New Zealand governs, are the Cook Islands and West ern Samoa; and her record in Samoa is not inspiring. That is because she is too small to be able to supply efficient Ad ministrators, except by chance. Even Aus tralia is too small, as is shown by the character of Australian appointments to Territory administratorships in the last ten years.

Great Britain, on the other hand, main tains a large Colonial Service, in which some of the finest types of young men are encouraged to seek their life’s career.

Britain, occasionally, has been guilty of sending rejected politicians and super annuated generals to govern her tropical dependencies; but, generally, the jobs are given only to those trained and proved men who have spent their lives in tropi cal administration.

New Zealand cannot do that: she has not got a tropical service at all. Aus tralia has got a fairly large tropical ser vice, now; but, whenever the Canberra nabobs have to appoint an Administrator, they turn their blind eyes to their train ed service, and make a surprising selec tion of their own. For example (and lest we forget!):— 1934: Brigadier-General McNicoll, ex politician and ex-soldier, appointed Ad ministrator of New Guinea. No previous experience of tropical or any other Ter ritorial administration. 1937: Mr. Abbott, ex-politician, ap pointed Administrator of Northern Ter

ritory. No previous experience of tropi cal or any other Territorial administra tion. 1937: Major-General Rosenthal, ex politician and ex-soldier, appointed Ad ministrator of Norfolk Island. No pre vious experience of tropical or any other Territorial administration. 1938: Lieut.-Colonel Chalmers, ex-sol dier, appointed Administrator of Nauru.

No previous experience of tropical or any other Territorial administration.

Neither Australia nor New Zealand can become “Great Britain of the South Sea” while the administration of Pacific Is lands Territories are regarded merely as the plaything of professional politicians.